Anand Anil Raimokar vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 5881 Bom

                                                                       25-APEALS-935-2017.doc



                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 935 OF 2017

            Ajit Arun Dahale                                        ...Appellant
                 Versus
            The State of Maharashtra                                 ...Respondent

            Mr. Paras Yadav i/b Mr. Rushikesh G. Patil for the Appellant

            Mr. S. V. Gavand, A.P.P for the Respondent-State


                                               CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

THURSDAY, 1st APRIL 2021 P.C. :

1 The appellant has filed the aforesaid appeal against the

judgment and order dated 16th October 2017 passed by the learned Special

Court (MCOC Act) and Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag in

Special MCOC Case No. 1 of 2012, convicting and sentencing him, along

with co-accused, as under :

- for the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 years and

to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment

for 3 months.

SQ Pathan                                                                                           1/5




                                                                       25-APEALS-935-2017.doc




                       -      for the offence punishable under Section 412 r/w 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 9 years and

to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment

for 6 months.

2 Vide order dated 28th November 2017, the appellant's appeal

was admitted by this Court and R & P was called. On 25 th January 2018,

this Court rejected the application filed by the appellant/applicant seeking

suspension of his sentence and enlargement on bail. On 10 th March 2021,

the appellant's Advocate Mr. Rushikesh Patil produced a letter dated 24 th

November 2020 issued by the Superintendent (Judicial Branch), District

Court, Raigad-Alibag asking the appellant-Ajit Arun Dahale (accused

No. 5) to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- being the estimated cost for

preparation of his paper-book. It was stated in the said letter that on failure

to deposit the paper-book cost, the appeal would be liable for dismissal.

The said letter was sent to the appellant-Ajit Arun Dahale through the

Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur. The appellant has, in his own

handwriting, written that he is not in a financial condition to pay such an

exorbitant amount.

SQ Pathan                                                                                          2/5




                                                                         25-APEALS-935-2017.doc


            3                 When the said letter dated 24th November 2020 was shown to

this Court, this Court vide order dated 10 th March 2021 requested the

Registrar (Judicial-I), High Court, Bombay to look into the same and

submit a report on the next date, whether such demand was justified and if

so, under what provision. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 17th

March 2021.

4 Pursuant thereto, the Registrar (Judicial-I), sent a letter dated

15th March 2021 to the Principal District and Sessions Judge seeking

information as to under which Rule and on what basis the estimated cost for

preparation of the paper-book was asked for by the Superintendent from the

convicted accused in jail.

5 Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time as even

the Superintendent, District Court, Raigad, Alibag, had sought time.

6 On 29th March 2021, Shri S. R. Patil, Superintendent, District

Court, Raigad, Alibag, sent a letter stating therein, that the High Court had

sought for 10 copies and because the State would incur a huge cost and the

State should not suffer any financial loss, the said letter was written. It is

further stated that the accused had not filed any application for exemption

SQ Pathan 3/5

25-APEALS-935-2017.doc

of payment of charges. It is further stated that instead of sending a regular

letter, the letter was sent in the civil paper-book notice format.

7 The explanation prima facie cannot be accepted. There is no

explanation as to under which provision/Rule, the Superintendent stated

that the appeal would be dismissed if the money was not paid. Was the

Superintendent oblivious that this was a criminal appeal and therefore the

question of sending notice in civil paper book format would not arise.

8 Considering the aforesaid, it would, therefore, be appropriate

to direct the District Judge, Alibag, Raigad to conduct a departmental

inquiry as to how many such notices till date, like the one dated 24th

November 2020 have been sent by the Superintendent to the accused, who

are languishing in jail and even in the present case, whether similar letters

were sent to the other co-accused in the said case demanding money for

preparation of the paper-book. The learned Judge to personally go through

the records with the assistance of the Nazir of the District Court.

9 The District Judge, after inquiry, to submit a report in a sealed

envelope and if necessary, take appropriate action against the concerned

SQ Pathan 4/5

25-APEALS-935-2017.doc

Superintendent, so that the same is not repeated in future. Report be

submitted before the next date.

10 Stand over to 28th April 2021. To be listed along with

Criminal Appeal No. 934 of 2017.

11 Registry to forward a copy of this order by fax/email, to the

learned District Judge, Raigad, Alibag, forthwith.

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

SQ Pathan                                                                                       5/5